Leeds/Bradford Runway

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 128

Hi.

For the LBA to really prosper it needs a further runway extension to at least 9,500ft to be able to cope with fully fueled and full passenger loaded aircraft.

Does anyone think that the current 7,400ft runway is feasable and economical for transatlantic services ( bearing in mind the odd summers day when the tempreture is around 80 degrees and the wind is calm ) or would a runway extension be better. ?

Are there any plans or rumours for a further runway extension and if so, at what end of the runway ?

With a 9,500ft runway it is pretty sure that 767-300s and even 747s could use the airport economically without having to stop off at another airport en route.

cheers

nordjet415

Original post

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 33

Leeds has already got its runway extension its down the road at Finningley!!. :)

Profile picture for user LBA_FAN2005

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 117

A friend of mine works fueling the planes @ LBA.....

He says that there is a rumour that there will be an extension to the Horsforth end of the runway......

Anybody got any idea if this is true or not???

Profile picture for user rdc1000

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,342

Hi.

For the LBA to really prosper it needs a further runway extension to at least 9,500ft to be able to cope with fully fueled and full passenger loaded aircraft.

You have to remember that Leeds is only marginally over an hour from MAN, which would make the business case for a major runway extension difficult because flights would be more viable from MAN, and would reduce the potential demand for an LBA service.

With a 9,500ft runway it is pretty sure that 767-300s and even 747s could use the airport economically without having to stop off at another airport en route.

MAN has longer runways, and 767s can be severly restricted on the hottest of days. When BA operated MAN - LAX they often had to offload passengers because they couldn't get off the runway with the fuel requirements. East Coast USA I would accept would be fine with that runway. The 767 does not have the greatest runway performance for heavily ladden flights.

Accounting for the fact that LBA is higher above sea level (affecting runway performance) it is useful to remember that BRS has a 2011m runway (shorter than LBA) and accpets daily New York 757 flights, as does NCL (with roughly the same length runway as LBA). If the airlines saw the market at Leeds they could at least tap into it now, especially givent he strategies of American and Continental to serve more points from their hubs with lower capacity aircraft.

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 170

Did the government white paper not call for a runway extension of some 300m?(Horforth end) This would push the length to around 8,400ft.
Similar to Birmingham,field elevation 325ft. Runway direction same as LBA.
And, Trans-Atlantic services.
LOT Polish operate 3 weekly flights to New York from Krakow using 767-300.
Runway length 8,400ft elevation 795ft, summer temps sometimes +30deg. A much longer flight than it would be from LBA.

Profile picture for user LBARULES

Member for

16 years 8 months

Posts: 9,401

Yet another thread about LBA, I like!

LBA will be getting a 300 ft extension in the next few years, if I remember rightly what someone said at college, I think its 200ft at 32, and 100 ft at 14, could be wrong though!

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 170

LBARULES,
I think you mean metres!

wawkrk

Profile picture for user LBARULES

Member for

16 years 8 months

Posts: 9,401

Probably did, lol, im not up with the metric and imperial differences!

Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 10,160

I'm not sending you to get 2 litres of Stella, then! ;)

Profile picture for user GZYL

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,121

Is there enough space to extend the Horsforth end of the runway... that little housing estate (Scotland) is pretty close to the runway as it is!

Profile picture for user LBARULES

Member for

16 years 8 months

Posts: 9,401

I'm not sending you to get 2 litres of Stella, then! ;)

LMAO, you wouldn't say no! :D

GZYL, I hope so, thats apparantly where they are extending it!

Profile picture for user GZYL

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,121

Seems a very strange move that! I mean... the aircraft already fly low over those houses.... and the extension will put them even lower.... there is loads of space on the other end of the runway... just farmland... why not extend it that way?

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 170

The runway needs to have the displaced threshold at 32 end extended in order to give greater landing distance but more importantly,longer take off run.
This is because of climb performance limitations caused by the Chevin some 2 miles distant.
The the current distance to the nearest houses is about 2000ft.
At 14 end which also helps in other ways, a 2000ft extension would be possible but not neccesary.
Obstacle clearance limits set by the CAA do not seem to make sense to the general public (like me).
The limits I believe for a large twin jet are based on single engine climb performance in
an emergency.Although a modern large twin jet can climb faster on a single engine than a 4 engined turboprop could manage on 3 engines in the old days.Maybe as aircraft performance continues to improve,this problem may be eliminated.

Profile picture for user GZYL

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,121

Aircraft need to be able to clear a 50 foot obstacle at the end of the runway. This must be possible with one engine inoperative IIRC.

Blimey.... with the 300m extension.... that means aircraft will be 350 ish metres away from some peoples living rooms! NOISY!

Profile picture for user LBA_FAN2005

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 117

Is any of this going to be affected by the new wind farm that is to be built near the airport????

I believe it is on the approach path at the chevin end????